TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were availing Cenvat credit under the provisions of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The inputs on which the credit was being availed, i.e., CR Coils, was being manufactured by their sister unit situated at Vasind. During the period 1-7-2000 to 28-2-2001 the appellant received certain inputs and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said inputs. However, there was some dispute about the assessable value of the inputs at Vasind unit which resulted in re-determination of the assessable value by adding 15% of the cost of raw material used in the manufacture of finished goods. As a result the assessable value was re-determined at the hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded on 1-3-2001 whereas the earlier Rule 57AE allowed taking of Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs only in two situations i.e., on finalisation of provisional assessment or on account of cost escalation. The subsequent amendment made on 1-3-2001 deleted the two events for issuing the supplementary invoices for payment of additional duty. The appellant's contention is that the amendment made on 1-3-2001 would be applicable in their case inasmuch as the supplementary invoices were raised in the month of April, 2001 when the said amended provisions were already in existence. In any case the said amendment is only clarificatory and in the absence of any doubt of payment of duty by the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces are nothing but the invoices raised subsequent to the clearances of the inputs under the original invoice and as such it can be said to be covered by the expression "invoices". As such we find no justification in denying the benefit of the credit to the appellants or to impose penalty upon them. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. [Assent per : C. Satapathy, Member (T)].7. - The appellants received the impugned goods from their sister concern at Vasind during the period 1-7-2000 to 28-2-2001 and took credit of the duty paid on the same. Subsequently, the Vasind unit paid additional duty of Rs. 93,39,434/- on the impugned goods and issued supplementary invoices, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he payment of the additional duty to be by reason of fraud, collusion, suppression, etc. The additional payment by the Vasind unit was a result of re-determination of the assessable value due to addition of 15% of the cost of raw materials. As such, the case merits coverage under the clause of finalisation of provisional assessment or on account of cost escalation appearing in Rule 57AE during the intervening period from 29-8-2000 to 28-2-2001. 10.Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is seen that Rule 57AB allows credit of duty paid on any inputs received in the factory on or after 1st day of April, 2000. There is no dispute about the duty paid on the inputs and receipt of the inputs in the appellants' factory and utilisation of the same in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
